I have experience with both Ruger (41 mag) and S&W (L Frame 357) Bought a Super Blackhawk 44 (5.5") and can't shoot it accurately at all. Don't know if it is this particular gun or me. I am very accurate with the 4.5" 41 mag, but am going to get rid of the 44. I am trying to decide between a longer barreled redhawk, or a Smith 629 classic. My 686 6" is the most accurate pistol and am leaning that way. Any insight would be appreciated

I am a smith and wesson guy. I have tried to warm to the redhawk for years, however they consistantly have a heavy gritty action and there is not a grip contour available that is comfortable to me. The 629 on the other hand in square butt manufacture with target grips fits my hand perfectly. Single action trigger pull is always great and the double action pull although a bit heavy is smooth and lightens with shooting. I'd buy a 629 and never look back!

I'd say handle them both and get the one that says "Take me home". Both are good quality guns.

Trigger feel/pull, or a "gritty" feeling action can be easily remedied, and I've seen both models with bad triggers. Probably a lot more S&W's out there, if your thinking a used gun. Just flip a coin and hope you lose.

I prefer the S&W.

I own a 629 and I love it. Having said that I suspect that the Redhawk might be the stronger gun ie. take heavier loads for a longer period of time. Perhaps someone can correct me.
Peter.

ive got 2 629s and a 29 and a custom 3.5 inch redhawk and like them all. To me there both totaly differnt guns for different purposes. The smiths tend to be a tad more accurate and are used for lighter loads for things like deer bear and pig hunting and mostly used from stands. When im walking and might come up to something close and personal i like the redhawk and its ability to shoot loads that give a 454 a run for its money. If push came to shove i could get buy with only two handguns. My 629 mountain gun that i could use for light hunting chores and even as a fairly good ccw gun and my redhawk for the big stuff.

Used to be a diehard Ruger fan for years but after I bought my first 617 and then a 629 I converted and sold all the Rugers I owned.
The Smiths are just so much nicer out of the box concerning action smoothness and trigger pull. Not a good enough handgun shot to say one is more accurate than the other but for me Smith's are just a much nicer firearm.

I tend to agree. IMHO the 629 is a better looking gun than the Redhawk. I do however like the looks of the Super Blackhawks.
Peter.

Lord knows I love my Smith & Wessons -- they feel great, handle well, and generally shoot well. Then there is the trigger -- that's a hard one to beat, but, you won't hurt the Redhawk no matter how you load it (within spec) and that cannot be said for the Smith......

Your own gun? You Appreciate accuracy? Buy a smith. For a company gun to give to river guides and sundry apprentice hunters? Buy a Ruger.

If you want a .454 buy a .454...trying to make a .44 into more than it was designed to be fits a certain class of people who are not my class...

Thanks to all. Will probably end up with the 629 in 6.5" When I can find one

I have a S&W 629-1
with 8 3/8 MagNaPorted barrel with scope.
LNIB
For Sale
If interested pm for more info.
Michael

629!

I'm gonna have to vote Redhawk.

I've owned enough of both to comment here. I think they both have their strengths. If you want a smooth action buy an Anaconda. I had a colt kodiak I never should have gotten rid of.

I love the Super Redhawks you just can't hurt them. They are my favorite D/A hunting revolver. They have the best factory system for mounting a scope. They are bulky so if it's a packing gun get a 629mountain. If you are going to shoot thousands of hot & heavy handloads get a Ruger. You won't be sorry with either one. Better yet buy one of each.

Unless you plan on shooting many very heavy for caliber loads, get a Smith and never look back. Easier to carry, usually more accurate in my experience, and lighter to boot, assuming same barrel length.

quote:

Originally posted by KurtC:
I'm gonna have to vote Redhawk.

Very nice! Is that an SRH cylinder I see in your Redhawk?

Have had both and a Bowen modified Redhawk.

The 629 untouched has the smoother actionv than the untouched Ruger, but felt the least comfortable in recoil.

Go borrow some shooting time from people with both .

quote:

Very nice! Is that an SRH cylinder I see in your Redhawk

Yes. I'm a fan of unfluted cylinders. I had Bowen fit it to the standard Redhawk, along with a few other perks.

It is my plan to have an SRH .454 cylinder fitted to a REdhawk as well -- since I sacrificed my .454 SRH for the basis of my .500 Linebaugh -- now I have an extra cylinder. Very nice!

Both are great guns. If you are going to shoot heavy 44mag loads go Ruger. They are tanks, will go 1000s of rounds of heavy 44mag loads. The 629 is a great gun, but you will shoot it into repair sooner than later running steady diet of heavy loads. Yes, I have done this, but also shot a RSBH into repair as well, but the Redhawk is a bit heavier duty.

Buy a Redhawk, send it to Bowen for tuning, and never look back.

quote:

Originally posted by fredj338:
Both are great guns. If you are going to shoot heavy 44mag loads go Ruger. They are tanks, will go 1000s of rounds of heavy 44mag loads. The 629 is a great gun, but you will shoot it into repair sooner than later running steady diet of heavy loads. Yes, I have done this, but also shot a RSBH into repair as well, but the Redhawk is a bit heavier duty.

Exactly!

I have found S&W to have better double action triggers than Rugers. Single action, the difference is not so noticeable, but S&W gets the nod there, too. That is box stock. Polishing the action can do wonders for any gun.

But I prefer Rugers. Here's why:

I owned two S&W revolvers in my past. Model 28 6" Highway Patrolman .357 Magnum and a K-22 Masterpiece 6" 22 rimfire. When I took the sideplate off the .22, I saw all those small parts inside (comparing it to my Dan Wesson, which had about half the number parts as the Smith.) I lubed the inside lightly, put the parts that sprang out back in and never opened it up again. I traded them off shortly thereafter. The Dan Wesson, in addition to having fewer parts, seemed to have more robust parts as well. Ruger parts are even more robust than the Smith or the DW. I like that. Same comparisons apply to the 44s, I think.

Undeniably, the Smiths are beautiful guns, but Rugers have their own style of beauty. And, "Beauty is as beauty does." However, My Dan Wessons have lock times that other guns can only dream of.

On the strength question, about 25 years ago, S&W made a big deal about the relative merits and strength of forged frames (S&W) vs investment cast frames (Ruger). Yeah, forged has an edge in strength-to-weight and strength-to-size ratios. But that edge has shrunk and, considering Ruger's frames are one-piece frames without sideplates, the design was always inherently stronger (opinion alert). And Ruger doesn't just make Ruger guns. They make frames for other gunmakers and investment cast parts for many other industries. Bill Ruger was a pioneer in investment casting post-war and Ruger still is a player in the industry. Meanwhile, many S&W parts are using MIM Casting technology. Go figure.

Anyhow, a little extra weight has its own advantage in a heavy-recoiling gun.

Happy shooting.

Lost Sheep

True Story:

My local indoor range has a 6" Ruger GP100 that, literally, had the rifling shot out of it. It had been on the rental racks for over 15 years, was the "goto" .357 they had. There's no way to estimate the volume of lead that's gone downrange with that gun.

I'd have to say, with some level of conservatism, that even at 100 rounds per day over 15 years it has easily digested over 500,000 rounds.

Just for giggles I asked them to pull the repair logs on the gun. There was only one entry: the day it was purchased. The GP100 had NEVER been shipped back to the factory. (side note: When it was shipped in last year, Ruger replaced the barrel, cylinder, lockwork, all moving parts and the grips on the revolver - the only original item left was the frame. Charge? ZERO, including shipping.)

We pulled the logs on the Smiths and the Rugers, both .357 & .44 mags and there simply was no question: the Rugers went to the shop for repairs a whole lot less than the Smiths. It was not uncommon to see the Smiths in yearly while the Rugers would go 5 years or more between shop visits.

Is the Ruger more durable? IMO, yes. If you want to jam tens of thousands of heavy loads the revolver then Ruger is the way to go.

The simple truth is that most shooters hardly put 2000 rounds through a handgun over it's life. So the whole durability argument might be a moot point.

I love Ruger for the durability. I love my Smith's for their feel. I have both.

I have to say that each gun is an individual. I have polished the actions, and done trigger work on all of my pistols. I own several S&W's and several Rugers, though not a Redhawk. My single six has the best trigger, and is the most accurate pistol I own. While my S&W's all shoot pretty darn well, I wouldn't say that Ruger is a second rate pistol as far as accuracy and feel go.
Changing out a spring or two takes just a couple of minutes and works wonders. Dry firing repeatedly, or just plain shooting a bunch will work out the kinks of a rough action (assuming you don't know how to clean it up yourself, and don't want to pay to have it done). I would do all of this to either gun anyway, so those complaints about the Rugers don't worry me at all.

Again, I have both. I love my Smiths, but next to the Rugers they are a bit on the frail side -- for lack of a better term.

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
Again, I have both. I love my Smiths, but next to the Rugers they are a bit on the frail side -- for lack of a better term.

Yep, My M29s get midrange loads, my Rugers get full bore hunting loads. I love KurtC's RH, very nice.

I never wanted a 454, just a Redhawk with it's slightly longer cylinder to shoot the Cast Performance LBT 320 grain bullet. I never realized that made me wrong class or low class. Then again, guys that are would be the last to know.

quote:

Originally posted by gbanger
I never wanted a 454, just a Redhawk with it's slightly longer cylinder to shoot the Cast Performance LBT 320 grain bullet. I never realized that made me wrong class or low class.

Whatever gave you that idea? The 45 Colt chambering in the SRH or RH is just fine. And I prefer the scope ring positioning on the "Hunter" barrel far more than the SRH's positioning on the frame where it interferes with thumb-cocking the hammer.

quote:

Then again, guys that are would be the last to know.

How true. And guys that aren't would seldom claim it.

Lost Sheep.

quote:

Originally posted by jemezsam:
Thanks to all. Will probably end up with the 629 in 6.5" When I can find one

You chose wisely.

quote:

Originally posted by Lost Sheep:

quote:

Originally posted by gbanger
I never wanted a 454, just a Redhawk with it's slightly longer cylinder to shoot the Cast Performance LBT 320 grain bullet. I never realized that made me wrong class or low class.

Whatever gave you that idea? The 45 Colt chambering in the SRH or RH is just fine. And I prefer the scope ring positioning on the "Hunter" barrel far more than the SRH's positioning on the frame where it interferes with thumb-cocking the hammer.

quote:

Then again, guys that are would be the last to know.

How true. And guys that aren't would seldom claim it.

Lost Sheep.

I'm not quite following you how the position of a scope on the SRH inhibits thumb cocking it. I have a red dot on one of mine, and a scope on another and there is no issue with cocking it.

rnovi, I'll bet 95% of all .44 magnums never have more than 100 rounds shot through them. Most of the people that I know that own them still have rounds left in the only box of ammo they ever bought.

I will see that and raise you that those same guns have never been cleaned either.

Picture for jemezsam
S&W 629-1
8 3/8 MagNaPorted barrel
Leupold Scope and Mounts
LNIB

quote:

Originally posted by swampshooter:
rnovi, I'll bet 95% of all .44 magnums never have more than 100 rounds shot through them. Most of the people that I know that own them still have rounds left in the only box of ammo they ever bought.

And I'd bet we can get 99% with less than 1,000 rounds fired!

It all depends on who you are and what you do...if you are a big shooter / hunter then yeah, the Ruger may well be a better gun. Especially if you load 'em hot.

while i will agree that a redhawk is a stronger gun and will take much heavier loads i will say that as far as reliablility goes if a guy is using factory level loads its a wash. Personaly i own upwards of 50 handguns more rugers then anything. My rugers have been sent back to the factory much more often then my smiths. Mostly due to quality control issues and mostly when the gun was realitivly new. I have sent back exactly one smith for repairs and it was an old 15 that hand zillions of rounds through it. I shoot the snot out of my guns. There for the most part rode hard and put away wet. Ive got smiths 25s and 29s with well over 50000 rounds through them and there as good as new. No doubt you can hot rod one and do some premature damage but thats your fault not the guns. One problem i used to experience in older rugers was the forcing cone being shot out. Ive replaced barrels on quite a few rugers. Mostly security sixes and older blackhawks. the newer ones seem to hold up a bit better but the smiths seem to still be better in that aspect. How many here have had the ejector housing shear off of a ruger. If you havent id say you havent shot a ruger single action much. Every screw on them tends to loosen when shooting heavy loads. If you dont check them about every time you shoot parts go flying. I check my smiths too but its rare something is loose on them. Im not bad mouthing ruger or taking sides here just saying that theres a bunch of ruger fans that seem to want to think that a ruger is a cadilac. Far from it, more like a ford. A basic gun that is a good bang for the buck. Personaly if i walked into a dealer and he had a 29 and a redhawk there for the same price i know which id grab. If the price was 200 dollars cheaper (which it usually is) the redhawk might come home with me. but then i allready have 3 redhawks and 4 29 smiths so they more then likely would both stay there.

i personally can't get warmed up for the smith yes their triggers are awesome but that is as far as it goes for me.I'll take a redhawk anyday over a smith

Lloyd shooting the snot means many differant things to differant shooters having lots of hand guns and putting lots of rounds through them doesn't mean shooting a lot of rounds through each one.

Are you saying you shot 50000 rounds through each one or 50000 rounds total through them all.

I'll well agree that 50000 rounds through one gun is alot for one gun. 50000 rounds through 20 differant ones is not many for each gun.

I know I would rather buy a Ruger than a Smith and I have several of each in the house right now. The only reason I have the smiths is they were the right price at the right time.

But I know that they are both fun to shoot.

I have shot them both & I went with the Ruger. The S&W is a fine revolver but the Ruger just fit me better. I do like the looks of the 629 classic though. they hit a homerun there.